Paul Goggins: The people and political parties of Northern Ireland have moved on from the days described by the hon. Gentleman. It is very important that people are able to move on from the grip of fear that dissident republican groups are attempting to deploy across the communities of Northern Ireland. One of the especially despicable things that dissident republican organisations are involved in is the extortion of money from drug dealers. In many cases, they use extreme violence but at the same they time pretend to protect communities from those who deal in drugs. It is absolutely essential that we deal with those dissidents, bring them to justice and make sure that they pay the price for their heinous crimes.

Harriet Harman: The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that when it comes to financial services, yes, we should all learn lessons and take action on the basis of that. Lessons need to be learned not only from the Government but also in the regulators and the financial services industry itself, and action needs to be taken. And we will take action on regulation, remuneration and corporate governance.
	But as well as making sure that we have the right regulation system in this country, we have to recognise that whatever the system of regulation in one single country, we have to work together to make sure that the global financial system is properly regulated, because this has been a global financial crisis. So we will learn the lessons and we will take action.
	But it is not just for us to learn lessons; the Opposition, too, have lessons to learn. When they were in government, there was no golden age of regulation: people lost a great deal in the collapse of BCCI and through the mis-selling of pensions. When we brought forward statutory regulation, they fought us tooth and nail, and all the way; and even as the credit crunch began to bite, they called for the total deregulation of the mortgage market.
	As far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned— [ Interruption. ]

Ann Winterton: Will the deputy Prime Minister confirm that the real reason for part-privatising Royal Mail stems directly from European Union postal legislation, which forced Royal Mail to divest itself of its most profitable business, thereby handingit over lock, stock and barrel to European competitors? What sense is there in that?

Andy Reed: Last week, we laid the first bricks in the £4 million extension to Rainbows children's hospice, which is in my constituency but serves the whole east midlands. We still need another £1 million, plus £2.5 million each year to keep the hospice running. When are the Government finally going to act to ensure that children's hospices do not rely for 95 per cent. of their funding on local residents and fundraisers, and finally get them to the level of adult hospices, for which about 40 per cent. of the funding comes from the public purse?

Patrick Cormack: I do not want to comment on the timetable for devolution; that is very much in the hands of the Assembly and the parties represented in it. I was very glad to see the declaration of 18 November, but it outlined a process and did not give a timetable. In my opinion, that was appropriate, but it is for my friends from Northern Ireland—I am referring to "my friends" in a wide generic sense, including the gentlemen on the Benches opposite—to decide exactly when this will happen. What is important is that, when it does happen, it should be permanent and not come unstuck. I agree with the substance of the intervention, because what the hon. Gentleman—who until recently was a very valuable member of my Select Committee—is saying is that there is not this urgency: we do have the opportunity to have a couple of days, and the general parliamentary timetable should permit it.
	I must thank the Minister of State for helping to prevent the originally proposed absurdity of publication on 23 February and debate on the 25th. That would have been quite appalling, and when the Secretary of State came before the Select Committee the week before the recess, we made it quite plain to him in no uncertain terms that that was something, in the immortal words of Churchill, up with which we would not put. The Secretary of State was extremely helpful in trying to ensure that there was time for the Bill to be published and for people to study it before Second Reading. I just ask, far more in sorrow than in anger, that having done that, which was proper and much appreciated, why does he still stick to the one day's consideration, especially in view of the fact that the other place has two days? I do not complain about its having two days, because that is entirely proper, but we should also have had two days. It is for those from Northern Ireland to determine whether time should be taken in the Division Lobby. I, personally, will not call a Division by shouting at the appropriate time, but I wish to make it plain that if there is one, I shall most certainly support the amendment and vote against this programme motion.

Peter Bone: I beg to move amendment (a), in paragraph 1(1), leave out 'at today's sitting' and insert
	'in two allotted days, which shall not be consecutive,'.
	It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is known for his support of democracy, although I was slightly unhappy with what he said. I hope that when he hears about my amendment, he will realise that it will not significantly delay progress. I intend to press my amendment to a vote, if I have the opportunity to do so.
	The effect of amendment (a) would be that the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill would take place today until the moment of interruption and a further day would be allocated for Committee and Third Reading. This would allow proper scrutiny of the Northern Ireland Bill. This is not a wrecking amendment. It would allow the Bill to proceed with proper scrutiny on the Floor of this House. Amendments (b) to (f) in my name on the Order Paper are consequential to amendment (a).
	My interest is in the allocation of time motion, which I believe dilutes parliamentary debate and scrutiny and, therefore, our democracy. I will not be talking about the Northern Ireland Bill itself, as that should be left for Second Reading, which, if my amendment were carried, would continue until the interruption of business this evening.
	The Executive have put Parliament in a real Catch-22 situation, because the longer that we take to debate the allocation of time motion, the less time we will have to debate the Northern Ireland Bill. Parliament has been given three hours to debate the allocation of time motion and, if the debate runs the course, that will give MPs only one hour for the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill. If there are Divisions, Second Reading could be reduced to the farcical time of just 30 minutes, giving time only for the Minister to speak and no proper debate. This is a gross abuse of Parliament by the Executive. It is electoral dictatorship by a control-freak Executive. There is, of course, a strong argument for debating this allocation of time motion for the full three hours, which would involve Parliament actually standing up to the Executive. Not even this Government would dare to proceed on the basis of a Second Reading debate of only 30 minutes.
	It is important to set out the reasons why all stages of the Northern Ireland Bill should not be read on one day. Let us consider the circumstances in which the Government can legitimately push through all the stages of legislation in one day. I understand that in national emergencies, such as those relating to terrorism, or when introducing economic measures that are extremely market sensitive, a swift progression through Parliament is needed. However, the Northern Ireland Bill is not one of those, as the right hon. Member for Neath has conceded. The Bill is a complex piece of legislation that changes the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1978 and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Those Acts were not uncontroversial, and amendments to them need proper scrutiny by Members of Parliament.
	Since 1997, only 15 Bills have been pushed through the Commons in all their stages on one day. Let us look at the type of Bill that has gone through and the precedent that that creates for this allocation of time motion. On 4 April 2001, the Elections Bill went through all its stages on one day. That was due to the national crisis caused by the foot and mouth epidemic. On 2 September 1998, Parliament was recalled from its summer recess to pass the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill in all its stages as an urgent response to the terrible Omagh bombing. On 19 February 2008, the Banking (Special Provisions) Bill was passed in relation to Northern Rock and therefore needed to be rushed through the Commons. The House sat until midnight on that day.
	None of the exceptional circumstances to which I have just referred applies to the Northern Ireland Bill. If this guillotine motion goes through, the Government will have set a dangerous precedent for curtailing debate and excluding proper Parliamentary scrutiny on controversial issues. This is an abuse of Parliament and democracy, and normal rules are being abandoned so that the Government can get things through on the nod.
	I have a lot of respect for the Secretary of State, but the arguments that he made today were rather weak. The Government have stated that the Northern Ireland Bill needs to pass through this place in one day to fit in with the schedule of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Deputy Leader of the House stated last Wednesday in the Business of the House debate that
	"The House requires speed only because there will be further stages after the Bill completes its passage here—namely, a Bill in the Assembly to establish the department of justice and a resolution by the Assembly, followed by Orders in Council, which must then come before the House."—[ Official Report, 25 February 2009; Vol. 488, c. 328.]
	However, that is simply not true.
	In the same debate last Wednesday, representatives from both sides of the Northern Ireland divide stated quite clearly that there was no rush for this Bill to go through and that time should be given for proper scrutiny. Moreover, several Northern Ireland Members who also sit on the Northern Ireland Assembly were not aware of any time limit given by the Assembly to the Government. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) said that
	"the urgency on this matter seems to be coming entirely from one direction—the Government."—[ Official Report, 25 February 2009; Vol. 488, c. 334-335.]
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) stated that:
	"Legislation for the optics, especially to suit a party that is not here, is not the best way for this House to conduct its business."—[ Official Report, 25 February 2009; Vol. 488, c. 336.]
	It seems to me that the only party that is keen for this Bill to be rushed through is Sinn Fein, which does not even bother to take its seats in this Parliament. I sincerely hope that the Government have not been pushed into rushing something through by one absent party. There are parties in Northern Ireland that take Parliament seriously and that want more time to debate such an important Bill, which will have major consequences for their constituents.
	I wish to praise all the hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies who take their seats in Parliament, whatever their political persuasion. Their dedication to the cause of peace and stability in Northern Ireland is highly commendable. I also wish to congratulate my Front Bench team, who work tirelessly and effectively. My hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) work extremely hard on the complex task of bringing devolution to Northern Ireland while at the same time ensuring the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
	Another argument why this Bill must be pushed through could be that we lack the space in the parliamentary business calendar to be able to spare any more time to debate it. But we all know that this is one of the lightest Sessions we have ever had. We will sit for only 128 days this year, of which 13 are reserved for private Members' Bills. There have been several occasions in this parliamentary year where debates have collapsed and sittings have ended way before their time limit due to the lack of business. Yesterday the House adjourned at 8.44 pm rather than 10 pm. Only last Wednesday, the business finished at 3.58 pm rather than at 7 pm. Lack of parliamentary time cannot be an excuse for this motion.
	So how does this motion fit with the principle of Parliamentary sittings? The current timetabling for parliamentary sitting is broadly based on the Jopling reforms, which encompass three principles. First, the Government must be able to get their business through and, within that principle, ultimately control the time of the House. Secondly, the Opposition must have the opportunity to scrutinise the actions of Government and to improve or oppose legislation, as they think fit. Thirdly, Back Bench Members on both sides of the Chamber should have reasonable opportunities to raise matters of concern to their constituents.
	If the Executive were to come to their senses at this stage and agree to my amendment that there should be at least one day's gap between Second Reading and Committee and Third Reading, all three principles would be met. That is exactly what amendment (a) would do. Clearly, the second and third principles are not being met. It is apparent to all that Parliament has more than enough time in this, the lightest of parliamentary years, to allow for separate days so that MPs have time to debate and scrutinise the Bill. Committee and Third Reading should not be on the same day as Second Reading, as required by the motion. My suggestion is that Second Reading should be held on one Wednesday—today—and that Committee and Third Reading should be held on a subsequent Wednesday.

Peter Bone: I apologise for my error. Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend.
	Standing Orders have been ignored today to rush through all stages of the Bill. Standing Orders have been developed over a long period of time so that the Executive cannot abuse their power. The Government seem to have no regard for Parliament or its procedures, which have been in place for so long. They want to microwave legislation. The motion, unbelievably, takes up four pages of the Order Paper to undo all the protections for debate provided to Members of this House. It is 17 paragraphs long with many sub-paragraphs. If it contains so much detail, should we not be suspicious of the intent?
	It always makes me very nervous when it is said that the procedure is agreed through the usual channels. That is not acceptable, in my view, and it does nothing to promote transparency in parliamentary procedure. That is why I have argued for a long time for a business Committee made up of senior Members from both sides of the House to manage parliamentary procedure and the legislative progress. If that Committee had been in existence today, I would not have had to move amendment (a).
	The Northern Ireland Bill is not a straightforward and simple piece of legislation that can be pushed through on the nod. It is a complex piece of legislation that will have historic significance for the people of Northern Ireland. Even if it were not complex and controversial, it should still not be hurried through in a day. Normal procedure should apply. It is unacceptable that the Government, who state their pride in working for so long to facilitate peace in Northern Ireland, should now want to rush this through.
	A major role of Members of Parliament is to scrutinise and review legislation. It is a well-known fact that the better the scrutiny, the better the Bill. One major role of MPs is to hold the Executive to account. The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, when he was Leader of the House, summed it up perfectly when he stated in a business of the House debate:
	"Indeed, the role of Parliament—both sides of the House as well as the other place—is to scrutinise Government proposals and to make its own decisions about the way in which matters are handled. My hon. Friend will recall from the time when he was Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and I was Home Secretary that, although it was sometimes uncomfortable, there was not a Bill that was not improved as a result of scrutiny."—[ Official Report, 16 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 138.]
	It is a shame that the Government do not agree with him.
	There is no doubt that one of an MPs most important roles—I would argue that it is the most important—is to hold the Executive to account. The motion removes that role, and it is appalling that the Government should try to stifle that essential function. I have long campaigned for more transparency and debate in Parliament, and I strongly believe in strengthening the role of the Back Bencher. The erosion of Parliament's power to scrutinise and debate has been a long-adopted approach by this Executive, and the motion is a step too far.
	The situation that we, as parliamentarians, find ourselves in is well explained in the conclusion of the Modernisation Committee's report, "Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the Back Bench Member", which is extremely relevant to the motion and amendment (a):
	"It is probably true that Parliament is more effective at sustaining an executive than holding it to account. There is clearly an inherent tension between these roles and it is inevitably difficult to sustain a perfect balance...In the final analysis, the strength and vitality of the House of Commons and Parliament as a whole depends upon the efforts and behaviour of its Members and the emphasis they place on their scrutiny and accountability role."
	In this motion we see the complete imbalance of parliamentary power.

Peter Robinson: I support the Bill, but I also support allowing more time to discuss it. The critical feature for me, my colleagues and the whole unionist community is the issue of confidence before policing and justice powers are devolved. Does it grow confidence to deal with this Bill in the constitutionally tacky way proposed today? The Government's approach will reduce confidence among the unionist community, because it will probably cause many of the good proposals in the Bill to go unreported.

Kate Hoey: In my own way I was getting round to saying precisely that. The Prime Minister may not be in the country, but I hope that at some stage someone will make it clear to him that the way this matter has been handled will lead to all sorts of problems for the legislation in Northern Ireland. Many of the parties have held different views on devolution on these difficult issues, but gradually a consensus is developing on what should happen and how it should happen. The last thing that people in Northern Ireland need is to feel that they and their politicians are being patronised as a result of the way this Bill is being pushed through in such a short time. What matters is the confidence of people in Northern Ireland. The idea that the only way to move the process forward—the great phrase that has become the mantra of so many Front-Bench spokesmen—is by driving a coach and horses through the usual way we deal with business in the House is shameful.
	The Secretary of State must understand the anger that this is causing. There is no need for this to be happening. We have time next week to get this Bill through without having to go to these lengths. If we are serious about Northern Ireland coming into the political arena with a normalisation of politics there, we must treat it Northern Ireland legislation in the normal way. There were times when that was not possible, and at various times we all had to vote for measures that we did not want to see dealt with so quickly but which were important and necessary. But this measure is not so urgent that it cannot be dealt with in the normal way. As well as appealing to the Secretary of State to listen to what has been said, to change his mind and to allow Second Reading to be dealt with today, and to come back with a different timetable, I plead with the official Opposition not to take the line that they have chosen, and to come out and vote solidly to show that they believe that this approach is wrong. If something is wrong, we must vote against it.

Sammy Wilson: Like the on-the-runs legislation. The Secretary of State's argument about the demands from the Assembly cannot be used to back up the urgency with which this measure is being pushed through.
	The Secretary of State said that we want to have this measure in place so that we can have the devolution of policing and justice when the Assembly is ready. The Assembly is clearly not ready. Leaving aside the whole issue of trust, the Assembly Executive Review Committee is still considering aspects of policing, not least the police budget and whether we want the devolution of policing and justice when there is a £170 million hole in that budget.

Shaun Woodward: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill will provide an essential stepping stone to the completion of devolution, and it is a tribute to those in Northern Ireland whose political leadership and commitment has turned the peace process into an enduring political process. That political progress has been and continues to be significant, and it is essential that the momentum is maintained. The Bill will ensure that the necessary framework is in place to enable progress towards the transfer of policing and justice powers when that is requested by the Northern Ireland Assembly and Parliament approves the transfer.
	When devolution is complete, we will have arrived at a significant new chapter in our history, with politicians elected in Northern Ireland being fully accountable to the people of Northern Ireland on law and order, and power truly shared. The Bill will play an important part in enabling elected politicians in Northern Ireland to assume their political destiny.
	I recognise that for some the pace of change remains daunting, and of course there is still confidence to be built. However, I believe that we are unanimous in recognising that the peace and prosperity that Northern Ireland enjoys today is a fundamental consequence of the political process. When the St. Andrews agreement was concluded in October 2006, and when the devolved institutions became operational in 2007, it was hoped that there would be sufficient community confidence to allow for the transfer of policing and justice powers by May 2008. The Government committed to do all that we could to ensure that when the Assembly was ready to ask for the transfer of powers, the necessary enabling legislation would be in place.
	The Government had hoped to see stage 2 of devolution completed last May, but community confidence was not ready. On 18 November 2008, significant confidence having been built by their shared leadership, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister wrote to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to say that agreement had been reached on a way forward to enable devolution to be completed. In January 2009, the Committee reported on its deliberations on the devolution of policing and justice powers, and its report was agreed by the Assembly in a cross-community vote. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the First Minister, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), and the Deputy First Minister, for their outstanding leadership and their determination to work through the problems that stood in the way of further progress towards the peaceful end that everybody seeks.
	The elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland have asked us for legislation on a critical set of issues, which they set out last November. That request was made also in the AERC report this January. It is for the people of Northern Ireland, through their Assembly, to decide when to ask for the transfer of powers, and in turn that request is for this House to decide. That is why it is necessary to have the Bill in place now and to expedite its path without undue delay. That pace is not for the convenience of the Government but to ensure that the Assembly has the tools that it needs to take the process that it has created to the next stage. There will be those who say, "But the Assembly is not going to ask for the powers just yet". That may indeed be the case, and it has much work still to do before it can do so, including creating a justice Department and deciding which of the several available models to adopt for the choice and appointment of a Justice Minister.
	Political agreement has often eluded us in Northern Ireland, and its failure has had tragic consequences. However, we have now taken that agreement to a new level of confidence, and we should have the courage to be bold and go forward. Frequently in politics, it is not possible to give everyone everything that they want, when they want it. Such moments demand political courage, and the inspiration of the story of Northern Ireland is that political courage is a quality that has reaped enormous dividends. There was a time, not long ago, when few would have believed that we could have had stage 1 devolution, with a power-sharing Administration in place. There was a time, not so long ago, when few would have believed that we could even entertain the thought of stage 2 devolution of policing and justice. The Bill marks one more step in the transformation of Northern Ireland, and I ask again for the House's co-operation and support in expediting it.
	I turn to the details of the Bill. Clause 1 and schedule 1 provide for the new departmental model proposed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister last November, and set out how that model would operate in the period up to 1 May 2012 if it were the one that the Assembly chose. The new model would consist of a single Minister, nominated by any member of the Assembly, elected by cross-community vote in the Assembly and removed in the same way. As such, the minister would not count towards the parties' allocation of seats on the Executive using the d'Hondt formula.
	That new model is added to the menu of options already provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. If the Bill is enacted, the Assembly will be able to choose from any one of eight models in setting up a justice Department. Under the terms of the agreement announced by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the Assembly will need to reach agreement on the future arrangements for ministerial oversight of the justice Department before 1 May 2012; otherwise, the Department will automatically be dissolved on that date.
	Clause 2 and schedules 2 to 6 deal with the arrangements for judicial appointments and removals. Broadly speaking, they transfer the post-devolution role that had been envisaged for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission and, in particular cases, to the Lord Chief Justice and the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Ombudsman. The roles already set out in legislation for Her Majesty, for the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor as her principal Ministers and for Parliament will remain largely unchanged.
	Reflecting the policy that the Assembly should agree on long-term arrangements for judicial appointments by 1 May 2012, schedule 6 will place on the Assembly a requirement to task one of its Committees with reviewing the arrangements put in place by the Bill and with making recommendations before that date. It will also put in place a freeze on new appointments to the Judicial Appointments Commission from 1 May 2012, unless and until the Assembly has reached agreement on the future arrangements for judicial appointments and removals. That freeze will not prevent judicial appointments from being made, but it will create a practical incentive to those involved to reach agreement on the way forward.
	Clauses 3 and 4 will make technical amendments to the statute book to prepare the way for the future transfer of policing and justice responsibilities. Clause 3(1) provides that, post-devolution, the function of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland in relation to providing guidance on the disclosure of juror information will be split between the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, for national security and terrorism cases, and the devolved Attorney-General for Northern Ireland for all other cases. That reflects the split of functions previously provided for by Parliament in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 in respect of many of the Attorney-General's other functions.
	Clause 3(2) provides that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland will be a corporation sole, a legal status meaning that the Public Prosecution Service can hold property in its own right. That will not alter the relationship between the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Public Prosecution Service and the Assembly, as provided for in the 2002 Act.
	The House will have the opportunity later to debate the relationship between the DPP and the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, which was debated and agreed on during the passage of the 2002 Act. That Act gave effect to the criminal justice review, which stated, at paragraph 4.162, that
	"in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, we believe that this independence should be further strengthened, by ensuring that the relationship between the Attorney General and the head of the prosecution service, while containing elements of oversight, is consultative and not supervisory. In other words, there should be no power for the Attorney General to direct the prosecutor, whether in individual cases or on policy matters."
	Critically, the review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland went on:
	"Our impression is that in some other common law jurisdictions the relationship between Attorney and prosecutor works well in practice and that the independence of the prosecutor in decision making is respected; but ultimately, if there were disagreement between the Attorney and the prosecutor on an individual case, then in law the Attorney's will would probably prevail."
	Crucially, the review said:
	"We do not believe that such an arrangement would be suitable in the Northern Ireland context."
	It might help the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), if I remind him what was said by his noble and learned Friend Lord Mayhew, one of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and a former Attorney-General. During the passage of the 2002 Act, he said:
	"Given the highly charged atmosphere of Northern Ireland—to use a well-chosen word that appears in the review—it is important that this enormously invasive prosecution arm of the state should be exercised in Northern Ireland by an official who is entirely independent. That is a departure from the current system in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 13 June 2002; Vol. 636, c.CWH93.]
	I can only hope that the hon. Gentleman will find his noble Friend's words persuasive when he considers his—very well-intentioned, I am sure—amendment. Equally, in the light of the information that we are beginning to discuss together, I hope that he will perhaps see why, on balance, the criminal justice review reached its decision after careful consideration and why his hon. Friend said what he said.
	Clause 4 extends the scope of the order-making power in section 86 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to provide for the possibility that Executive functions may be devolved even where the legislative competence is to remain reserved. That would provide Parliament, in due course, with greater flexibility to ensure that practical responsibility for functions sits at the most appropriate level, while still keeping legislative competence for that matter reserved to Westminster.
	Let us be clear about what the Bill is not. It is not a Bill that will devolve policing and justice. Parliament has already set out the arrangements for that, in section 4 of the 1998 Act, which depends on the triple lock, whereby a motion requesting devolution needs to be tabled in the Assembly by the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly. After that, the motion would need to be approved on a cross-community vote in the Assembly, and then the Secretary of State would bring forward transfer orders to Parliament in Westminster for approval and debate. The Bill will not impose devolution on a majority if they later choose not to exercise that power.

Owen Paterson: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments; I am about to make similar comments myself. I particularly agree with him about the collaboration with the Garda, which I have noticed in the border areas.
	The year before last, two officers had lucky escapes in Londonderry and Dungannon. In more recent months, the attacks in Craigavon, the rocket attack in Lisnaskea and the bomb in Rosslea thankfully did not succeed. As recently as February, a 300 lb bomb was found in Castlewellan. So-called loyalist groups also pose a real danger to police officers. It is disgraceful that they have not decommissioned weapons as we approach the 11th anniversary of the Belfast agreement. A police officer was shot in the back in Carrickfergus, and of the 20 officers forced from their homes in the past 12 months, five were driven out by loyalists. The above list is far from comprehensive, and I pay tribute to the bravery of all those involved at every level of the police and security services for minimising the damage that these violent criminals wish to inflict on the law-abiding majority. As we debate the Bill, we should all remember the dedication of these public servants.
	Some dissident groups have moved into drug crime, and this continues the violence. Masked men who shot a man dead in Londonderry in February were thought to be dissident republicans involved in drugs. Fuel smuggling is estimated to cost the Exchequer £100 million a year. In some areas, both dissidents and republicans are, amazingly, working together to smuggle fuel.
	The Assembly should remember, when deciding whether to use the option provided by the Bill, that normal policing is extremely difficult in these circumstances and that—despite Patten recommendation 55, which states that police cars should be substituted in place of armoured Land Rovers—more and more patrols are forced to travel in armoured vehicles due to the rise in dissident violence. The dissident threat has also led to a huge increase in police overtime, with the result that £24.5million has had to be taken from this year's budget to pay for last year. There are suggestions that the Policing Board is starting the new financial year £50 million in the red. The PSNI needs to save £263 million by 2011. Proposed police station closures are unpopular, the information technology budget has had to be reduced, and police overtime will be cut by 51 per cent. over three years.
	We are therefore discussing the Bill in the context of further looming pressures on the budget. There are more than 2,000 claimants for hearing loss, which could cost a further £100 million. I have even heard reports that that could rise to £400 million. The historical inquiries team has had to cut staff. The current established figure of 7,500 full-time officers has not been achieved, and plans for police community support officers have been put on hold for three years. On the positive side, great progress has been made in increasing Catholic recruitment, which is up to 25 per cent., and on target for 30 per cent. by March 2011.
	In his winding-up speech, will the Minister please confirm that police pay, pensions and conditions will continue to be set nationally after devolution? Will he confirm how inquiries into the past will be paid for in future? Who will pay for any litigation that flows from those inquiries? Could he give us an overall appraisal of the current and future financial position of the PSNI?
	When the Assembly comes to debate the timing of devolution, it should be aware of the extremely difficult conditions in which the police continue to operate, and the serious financial consequences of that. I am also conscious that a number of politicians in Northern Ireland take the view that Stormont should be allowed to settle down and resolve issues such as education before taking on the additional burden of policing and criminal justice. In my opinion, however, that is strictly a matter for the Assembly.
	The background to the Bill is that the PSNI is already the most accountable police force in the world. The Chief Constable is widely respected across all parts of the community and is self-evidently non political. He reports to a Policing Board that has representatives from all political parties, and there is further scrutiny by the police ombudsman, the district policing partnerships and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Despite the ultimate responsibility resting with the Secretary of State, there is already significant involvement by representatives across all the community in Northern Ireland.
	It is important to stress—as the Secretary of State did—that the Bill does not deliver the devolution of criminal justice and policing. That could have been triggered at any time since the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which gave effect to the Good Friday agreement, had there been cross-community support for it. Since then, a number of models for the devolution of criminal justice and policing have been proposed. There are currently seven such models. This Bill creates an eighth model, following exhaustive negotiations in the Northern Ireland Assembly, primarily between the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein. That resulted in a report to the Assembly, which was published in January. We believe that locally elected politicians should ultimately be responsible for such matters, but which model is chosen should be a matter for the parties in the Assembly to agree.
	At the same time, we have always insisted that powers should be transferred from this Parliament only when three criteria have been satisfied: first, that all parties represented in the Executive are committed to pursuing their objectives by exclusively peaceful and democratic means; secondly, that all parties fully support, in word and deed, the criminal justice system, including the police and the courts; and, thirdly, that such a transfer of powers commands support across the community, as expressed through Northern Ireland's political representatives. In our view, that is not something that should be imposed according to an arbitrary deadline or timetable, so I welcome the fact that nothing in the Bill alters the existing triple lock on the transfer of powers.
	The mechanism for transferring policing and justice in the 1998 Act remains unchanged. Before devolution takes place, it must have the consent of the First Minister, a majority of designated Unionists and nationalists in the Assembly and of both Houses of Parliament. I give a guarantee that any future Conservative Government will fully uphold that triple lock while respecting the decision of the Assembly.
	In addition, we have always made it clear that any devolution of policing and justice powers must preserve the operational independence of the Chief Constable and his officers; the independence of the judiciary must also be guaranteed. Those are cardinal principles that cannot be compromised. There must be no question of allowing political interference in such matters in Northern Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom.
	We support many features of the Bill, particularly the changes to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 in respect of appointments to judicial offices. In our view, it is right and sensible to give to the Lord Chief Justice the powers originally envisaged as being exercised by the First and Deputy First Ministers. One of our concerns when the 2002 Act was passing through Parliament was about the potential for politicisation of certain judicial appointments, but these changes go some way to allaying our fears.
	We are not happy, however, that the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is, in the words of the explanatory note,
	"independent of a 'parent' department within the Northern Ireland departmental system".
	I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's comments, and we will study the text that he referred to in detail, but we believe that devolution of criminal justice and policing would actually be strengthened if the DPP were superintended by the Attorney-General, who, according to the 2002 Act, may participate in the proceedings of the Assembly. We believe that the Attorney-General should be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice on the recommendation of the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.
	I am confident that our amendments, if approved, would strengthen the devolution of justice, making the DPP answerable to a key figure who is accountable in turn to the Assembly. It would also give the DPP a shield to protect him on occasions when he has to deal with very contentious prosecutions. We have tabled a number of other amendments, including one that would set a time limit of six months on appointing a Justice Minister. That is in no way intended to undermine devolution, but we think that, given the security situation in Northern Ireland, it is not acceptable for criminal justice and policing to continue for an indefinite period without a Minister responsible to a democratic body.

Mark Durkan: Yet again, we have a Second Reading debate on a Bill that addresses the devolution of justice and policing in Northern Ireland. It comes, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) noted earlier, on top of a torrent of legislation on the same subject—seven previous Acts have touched to some degree on this issue. The reason for having so much legislation is that there has been so much misrepresentation about what the devolution of justice actually means. We have also had a lot of pretence about its imminence in the past, and perhaps there will be more pretence about it now.
	Let us reflect on how this issue has developed over recent years. Sinn Fein used it as an excuse to put off the evil day, as they saw it, when they would have to sign up to policing. They said that they had to have devolution of justice and policing first, so the terms, principles and constructs of the devolution of justice and policing became the be-all and end-all before Sinn Fein could move forward on policing. It was essential to Sinn Fein, because they could say that when they went on the Policing Board, they would have control over the police. The Government—indeed the two Governments—started playing that line and brought us through a chicane of different legislative models and pieces of legislation in order to create landmarks, which were optical illusions to show that significant progress was being made on the road to the devolution of justice and policing. Those optics could then be served up to supporters and the broader public.
	All that created fear and unease within the Unionist community, so parties such as the Democratic Unionist party worked to hold up the devolution of justice and policing with dire warnings about paramilitary control or people with paramilitary records gaining control of the police and the prosecution service, thus creating a lot of unnecessary and undue fears about what the devolution of justice and policing would entail.
	What we need to remember about all this—in fairness, the Secretary of State has made this point in the past, as did his predecessor—is that a significant number of the powers previously exercised by Secretaries of State and the Northern Ireland Office had already been devolved both to the Policing Board and the Chief Constable, and rightly so. Broadly, that worked well and confounded the low expectations of many people.
	We also need to remember that when the devolution of policing and justice comes, whoever or whatever the relevant Minister may be, they will not be in a position to lift the phone and tell the Chief Constable, "Set my people free; go after those people." Ministers will not be able to interfere in prosecutions, judicial considerations or anything else of that nature. Many of the fears have thus been hyped up—apprehensions on the one hand and perhaps false aspirations and ambitions on the other. Any such falsehoods needed to be laid to rest.
	With the devolution of justice and policing, there will be no going back to the political control of the old Ministry of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, and there will be no going forward to paramilitary control. Why? Because the protections in the Patten report and the criminal justice review—two reviews set up under the Good Friday agreement—are there to stop it. Sinn Fein knows that, which is why it ended up having to sign up to policing, despite the fact that it had neither the devolution of justice and policing nor even a date for it to happen. At the time, it did not even have the agreement that it now says that it has with the DUP. Its position was indulged for far too long, with all the phoney legislation and other moves of Governments emerging from it. That is why we are back here dealing with the issue yet again today.
	The DUP, of course, knows all about this, too. That is why the current DUP leader, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) told  The Irish Times four and a half years ago that the devolution of justice was "no big move" for Unionists, yet we get it played again and again as though it were the biggest possible move for Unionists. Again, bad management of the process by the Government has allowed the Democratic Unionist party to move from one tactic to another.
	The fact is that devolution of justice and policing will be a threat to nobody and an opportunity for everyone. It will consummate political change and policing change. It will ensure that we complete the suite of devolution in having policing and justice powers alongside all others. It will mean that MLAs will be worthy of the title Members of the Legislative Assembly, because they will be able to legislate on the criminal law alongside other matters and ensure that programmes, policies and budgets across all the services that policing has to deal with, along with other devolved services, can better mesh and engage.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall certainly curtail my remarks substantially.
	Several points arose from the speech by the hon. Member for Foyle, which was a comprehensive analysis, although I did not share all his conclusions. On several occasions I would have liked to test his analysis, but I resisted doing so because of the time constraints that have been placed on the House. That is a very good practical illustration of the absurdity of the position in which the Secretary of State's timetable motion has placed the House today. We are constrained from giving a proper consideration to this Bill on Second Reading, let alone at the later stages. We have two hours and 10 minutes for the Second Reading of a Bill that is of constitutional significance, and that is a constitutional outrage.
	That said, the Liberal Democrats will support the Second Reading of the Bill. We have been supportive of the Government throughout the devolutionary process. Occasionally we have been critical friends, but I like to think that we have always been supportive and been able to reach an accommodation with the Government. I hope that by the time that we come to the end of this process, if not in this Chamber then in the other place, we will remain able to make that proud boast. However, as the Secretary of State knows, substantial issues of difference still lie between us. As things stand, it will be difficult for me to compromise on certain points that I shall mention later, on which we have tabled amendments.
	We are in favour of the devolution of criminal justice. We have supported and promoted it for a long time, and we see it as the final piece in the devolutionary jigsaw. It is a major step in the normalisation process, as it is called. Several measures have already been put in place to provide greater transparency and accountability regarding operational matters, and they now need to be plugged into a democratically elected Assembly. That would be a recognition that criminal justice sits well with the other devolved Departments, including health and education. Criminal justice does not exist in a silo.
	The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser) spoke earlier about the budget. Although that is not germane to the text of the Bill, is part of the proper context in which we should consider the devolution of criminal justice. I was surprised when I heard the Secretary of State say that chief constables on the mainland of the United Kingdom would be envious of the budget given to the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland. That would probably be the only operational aspect of policing in Northern Ireland that would be the subject of envy from other chief constables. That point again highlights the inconsistency in the Secretary of State's position. On the one hand, he tells us that we have to railroad the Bill through today because the whole process is so fragile, but on the other, he says that we have to look for cuts and savings in the front-line policing budget. We all know the context of the Patten level of policing being set at 7,500 until 2010 and thereafter of the suggested reduction to 6,000. To my mind, if devolution of criminal justice is to be successful politically, it must be given the resources operationally. If we fail to debate it in that context, we will have failed in our duty.
	Our principal concern, however, relates to the provisions of schedule 1, which deal with the removal of a Minister from office. The House will be aware that the schedule proposes that a Justice Minister can be removed by a simple cross-community vote in the Assembly. The Secretary of State might argue that that is the same procedure as for the removal of any other Minister in the Assembly, but to do so ignores the political implications of that part of the Bill. We have warned the Secretary of State and Ministers not to consider policing in Northern Ireland as in any way comparable to other ministries. Policing in Northern Ireland has a particular special context and special arrangements, including those for human rights compliance and the structures for oversight and accountability that are not considered necessary in the rest of the UK.
	Indeed, the subject of our debate this afternoon substantiates that point. We are offered yet another model for a ministry of justice in Northern Ireland in addition to the various others that are already on the statute book. Again, it emphasises that the justice ministry will not be just another Department and says that an issue as important as policing in Northern Ireland must have special arrangements. An entirely new Department must be created, outside the 10 Departments in the Assembly, to accommodate such weighty functions. That model says that although we have already considered how such a ministry should be structured, we have not got it right yet and that the matter is too important to be anything less than perfect. Simply to say that the Minister in charge of one of the most contentious and critical Departments can be got rid of in the same way as any other Minister ignores the special circumstances that surround the role.
	Policing and justice functions are different in the Northern Irish context. They are so different that the parties in the Executive believe that they should look beyond themselves to find a person who can fulfil the role of the Justice Minister. Reference has been made to the Alliance party as the elephant in the room, but the elephant that has more determination in this debate than any other is the elephant that chooses not to come to this room. It is not the Alliance party that is pulling the strings, but Sinn Fein.
	It is not the function of the Bill or the House to appoint the next Justice Minister, but we all know that it is widely said that an Alliance party nominee would be expected to take up the role, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Foyle explained. It is obvious that there is a certain logic and appropriateness in that. However, to place an Alliance Minister in a role from which they could be so easily removed is, in our view, completely unacceptable. That is our point of disruption as far as the Secretary of State and the Government are concerned. There is no equivalence between a Minister who simply has to retain the confidence of his party nominating officer and one who has to maintain the confidence of political opponents while doing the most difficult job in the Assembly.
	The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) has recently been the subject of some controversy as Minister of Environment, given his views on man-made climate change. I wonder, in passing, whether he would retain the confidence of political opponents in the way that is expected of the Minister for Justice. Indeed, important though climate change is, the removal of the Environment Minister, if it were to happen, would never have the political implications of the removal of the Justice Minister.
	It is also worth remembering that in a cross-community vote, the vote of a Member of the Alliance party is worth less than the vote of a Member of the DUP, Sinn Fein, the SDLP or the Ulster Unionist party—or the new force, or whatever it now is. The vote of an Alliance Member does not count in the stage that requires 50 per cent. of Unionists and 50 per cent. of the nationalists to vote, as Alliance is neither Unionist nor nationalist. Is it right that a person can be removed from such a fundamental position by a mechanism that does not even treat them as equal to the other parties in the Executive? No other party would accept such an onerous duty under such disadvantageous circumstances, and we cannot expect the Alliance party to do so.
	When the House moves to consideration of the Bill in Committee, we will deal with amendments that seek to correct what we regard as an unacceptable provision. If the Government do not accept our constructive amendments, I very much regret to say that, although they will have our support on Second Reading, I cannot guarantee that they will have it much beyond that.

Paul Goggins: It will be a different arrangement for removal because there is a different arrangement for appointment. The same mechanism for appointment is therefore available for removal. That is entirely consistent with the other models, even if it is different in the respect that the Assembly appoints the Minister. The party leader would normally nominate the Minister and could remove that Minister. Here, the Assembly appoints and the Assembly could remove, but the safeguards mean that that could not be done frivolously.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns) for his speech. He was an excellent colleague in the time that we worked together in Northern Ireland, and he made an important contribution. The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) also made an important speech that was encouraging in terms of devolution and, in particular, the Bill before us. He outlined the work that has gone into getting to the point at which the measures in the Bill have become possible. I thought it particularly striking that he took so much time to emphasise how important it is to the DUP that the devolution of policing and justice is carried through, although he of course emphasised that who exercises those powers is important. It is also important that there is widespread community confidence, although as he underlined, that confidence is growing. That is something that we can all sense.
	The right hon. Gentleman, in common with the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), mentioned the issue of cost. As he knows, that is subject to considerable work, led by Jeremy Heywood, who was appointed by the Prime Minister. No doubt that work will continue to attract his attention and that of others.
	I thank the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) for the remarks that he made, and for his support and his scrutiny of all the issues that we are discussing today, as well as on other occasions.
	I turn finally to my dear and hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who I know was somewhat frustrated that he could not have quite as long to speak as he perhaps would have liked—we seldom do in this place. He raised some important points. If somebody left office, as it were, by accident, the Assembly would have the powers and the wherewithal to appoint somebody to stand in their place. It would be the same mechanism for then appointing somebody to succeed them.
	My hon. Friend also asked about extraditions. Extraditions will not be affected by any measure in the Bill, although I am happy to meet him—
	 Four hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Order, this day), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Laurence Robertson: I want to speak fairly briefly, because we are short of time and I raised one or two issues on Second Reading. As I said, we welcome this model. It appears to us to be the best of the eight models, but we are concerned about one or two things. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has reinforced the arguments about the open-ended nature of the situation. If policing and justice were devolved later this year—I hope that that will happen if the circumstances are right—how long would it take for a Minister to be in position? The hon. Gentleman is right that any Department needs a head, whether we call them a leader, a director, a Minister or something else. Otherwise, how can it function? If it can function perfectly well without that head, why should we have any Ministers at all? That is the logical conclusion of the argument.
	We believe that there has to be a head of Department. We also believe that because of the special and difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland, and because this move is ground breaking, it is inconceivable that there should not be a Minister to oversee the Department. After an Assembly election, there are seven days in which all the other Ministers can be appointed, yet there is no time limit for this particular appointment. Of course, given the difficulties and sensitivities, it could take more than the normal seven days to fill the position. We also recognise that discussions have been going on about who would be suitable—perhaps I should say acceptable—in the role. It could be that that person did not win their seat back after an election, so we would have to start all over again. It could take a bit longer than seven days.
	The time limit that we are suggesting is six months. According to the discussions that we have had, that is probably a long time, too. It probably is too long, but I wanted to put down some time limit and it is very difficult to come up with one. Given the record of deadlines being broken in Northern Ireland—the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is not in his place but has contributed to the debate, famously broke two absolutely unbreakable deadlines the year before last—we know that it is difficult to impose deadlines. However, we already have a deadline for the appointment of the other Ministers and I suggest that we ought to have a deadline for the appointment of this Minister. As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, that would concentrate minds on what is absolutely necessary, if nothing else.
	We are concerned about the immediate appointment if devolution takes place before the next Assembly elections. We are also concerned about the appointment after the next Assembly elections, so we tabled amendments 5, 6 and 8, which address those points. Amendment 8 refers to the time limits that can be taken to fill the office once the devolution order has been made, while amendment 5 requires the office to be filled within six months of the Assembly's first meeting after an Assembly election.
	In amendment 6, we propose a default position. This is a difficult matter, as we want policing and justice to be devolved, as I have said repeatedly. It would therefore be deeply unsatisfactory to return the powers to the Secretary of State, but given the nature of the problem in Northern Ireland, that would probably be the least bad of all the options. The hon. Member for Thurrock has made his own suggestions about a fall-back position. I listened to him extremely carefully and do not have violent disagreements with what he said, but I think that I prefer our amendments.
	Amendment 9 refers to what would happen after 1 May 2012 if the Justice Department were dissolved. Again, I would consider it rather unsatisfactory if that happened; I would very much prefer it if the Assembly voted to extend the present model beyond 2012 or if it chose another one, but once again we need consider what a fall-back position might be. In amendment 9, I have proposed the same one that would apply if the Ministers were not appointed, either now or after the Assembly election—that is, that control of policing and justice would come back to this place. Again, I think that that would be highly unsatisfactory, although I do not believe that it will happen. The delicate negotiations that have allowed us to get as far as we have lead me to believe that we are starting to build on ground that is rather more substantial than sand. I hope that we do not get to the position where the proposed fall-back would apply.
	Like the hon. Member for Thurrock, I do not know exactly what would be dissolved. If the Department were dissolved, who would give direction and carry out the administration? I listened very carefully as the Minister of State, who has momentarily left the Chamber, explained what would happen. He said that the Assembly would be charged with coming up with another model or reaching some further agreement. However, if no agreement has been reached by 1 May 2012, which is almost three years off, will the parties involved be able to come to another agreement so very quickly after that date? Alternatively, will the whole structure be in chaos?
	With respect to the people who work in Departments with responsibility for matters such as tourism and so on, I point out that we are dealing with matters that are substantially more difficult and dangerous for the people of Northern Ireland and, given what has happened in years gone by, possibly for people in Great Britain as well. Having listened to what the Minister of State said, I am not entirely satisfied that we can leave the Bill as it stands, and I think that I would prefer a fall-back position to be put in place.
	I do not intend to speak at any length to amendment 7, which is a probing amendment to ensure the independence of the PSNI and the judiciary in Northern Ireland. It addresses the concerns that have existed in Northern Ireland for a number of years and which have prevented the devolution of policing and justice. I would very much welcome the Minister's observations on that amendment as well.

Peter Robinson: May I add to my voice to the attempt to end any doubt on the part of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) about what may lie behind the appointment of a Justice Minister by the method that is chosen, or indeed the removal of the Justice Minister? Neither the First nor the Deputy First Minister will wish to do anything other than give full support to a Justice Minister, especially a Justice Minister who will have been appointed by a more democratic method than any other Minister in the Executive and who will therefore be harder to dismiss.
	If there were any difficulty in the process, of course the prospective Justice Minister could talk to the First and Deputy First Ministers about what lay ahead to ensure a clear understanding of the nature of any potential removal from the job. If necessary, the Assembly itself—not the House of Commons—would have power to change its Standing Orders, through its Committee on Procedures, to make whatever relevant change was necessary.

Shaun Woodward: I think that what the right hon. Gentleman says is entirely fair, but I understand why there is concern, and I only hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will find that we can deal with his worries.
	Part 3 of schedule 1 deals with the arrangements that will apply during the initial period of devolution, up to 1 May 2012, if this new model is the one selected by the Assembly. Paragraph 6 disapplies, at the point of devolution, the normal requirement to re-run d'Hondt following the establishment of a new Department. Paragraph 7 waives, during the period up to 1 May 2012, the requirement that the Justice Minister be elected within the seven-day envelope set for the appointments of all other Ministers after an election. That avoids the possibility of another election being triggered automatically, and is intended as a prudent transitional arrangement to allow the Assembly flexibility to deal with the issue in the early years of devolution in a way that minimises disruption to devolution.
	Amendment 26, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), opposes that provision. I hope that what I have said, and what I will say in a moment, will persuade him not to press his amendment to a vote. I recognise, of course, that there are fears that both after the transfer of powers and after the 2011 election, the Assembly will be unable to agree on whom to appoint as Justice Minister, but a number of amendments put before the House deal with that difficulty.
	Amendments 5, 6, 8, 9 and 27 seek to provide that if a Justice Minister has not been appointed six months after responsibility for policing and justice has devolved or six months after the Assembly election in 2011, or if the Department is dissolved in 2012, the Secretary of State shall assume the direction of the Department or of the functions that it previously exercised. Amendment 25, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, provides that the Prime Minister should have power to appoint a Member of this House, or of another place, to act as Minister during even a short-term vacancy—due to a fall down the steps of Stormont, for example—in the office of Justice Minister.
	Although I acknowledge that having no Justice Minister in place is clearly unsustainable in the long term, if the Assembly were unable to appoint a Justice Minister it would be right for the Government and Parliament to have the maximum flexibility to decide both when and how to intervene if such action were ever required. In my view, it is unhelpful to speculate at this point on exactly what the nature of that intervention might be, and on when it might prove necessary.
	Such prescriptive amendments would prevent the necessary flexibility in those extreme circumstances should they ever arise, and for that reason the Government oppose them. However, I am happy to assure the House that, in doing so, we are not claiming that it would ever be acceptable simply to abandon responsibility to people in Northern Ireland in the event of what would effectively be a catastrophic breakdown of confidence. Rather, we are saying that we should have confidence in the parties which have themselves produced this agreement and which have, through their Assembly, produced the report that we hope will become this legislation, and that we should back and have the confidence of the parties behind it.
	Amendment 22, tabled by the hon. Members for Foyle, for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady), adopts a different approach to the problem of the Justice Minister's post not being filled. It proposes that in the event of no Justice Minister's being appointed within seven days of an election, all Northern Ireland Ministers will cease to hold office and will be reappointed by means of the d'Hondt mechanism, including the Justice Minister, irrespective of what other provision the Assembly has previously made for the selection of the Justice Minister.
	This approach is built on by new clause 1, which provides that unless certain conditions have been met before 1 May 2012, all Ministers will cease to hold office at that point and the posts, including that of Justice Minister, will be filled using d'Hondt. This is a significant and radical departure from the wishes of the Assembly as set out in recommendation 10 of the Assembly Executive Review Committee report, which states that the appointment of the Justice Minister should be made by cross-community vote, at least in the transitional period up to May 2012. It also goes against the terms of the agreement between the First and Deputy First Ministers, which stated that there should be no presumption about the fall-back arrangements for appointing the Justice Minister in the absence of agreement in 2012. It is essential that the House grasp this point: one of the bases of the 18 November agreement is the assumption that there would be no fall-back arrangement. Therefore, to put anything else in its place would be to undermine the principles by which that agreement was reached. It is for this reason that the Government are unable to support these amendments.
	Paragraph 8 of schedule 1 provides that the Justice Department will automatically dissolve on 1 May 2012 unless the Assembly has before that date passed either a resolution, with cross-community support, to continue the Department under the same model, or an Act making new arrangements for the ministerial oversight of the Department, choosing any one of the pre-existing seven models.
	Amendment 23 seeks to remove paragraph 8. Doing so would remove the provision that gives effect to the part of the First and Deputy First Ministers' agreement that outlines that the initial arrangements for ministerial oversight of the Department should be sunset on 1 May 2012, and that there should be no presumption about what the oversight arrangements would be beyond that date. This was an integral part of the political agreement that enabled recent progress. In addition, removing paragraphs 9 and 10 would mean that, should the Assembly not elect to use the Minister/junior Minister model in the first instance to set up a Department of Justice, it would be unable to switch to this model at a later date, should it wish to do that.
	Amendment 23 also seeks to remove paragraphs 9 and 10, which make technical amendments to sections 21B and 21C of the 1998 Act to allow for the possibility of this model—the Minister/Deputy Minister model—being selected as the second model. This is necessary because at the time that model was legislated for, it was anticipated that it would be used as the first model and the legislation was drafted accordingly. The Government therefore oppose this amendment.
	This clause and schedule are necessary to give effect to the agreement reached by First and Deputy First Ministers on the departmental model for a Justice Department and, as such, to pave the way for the future devolution of policing and justice at the point that the Assembly is ready to request it.

Shaun Woodward: With respect, I think that when the hon. Gentleman reads  Hansard, he will see that I did in fact address that.
	In conclusion, let me simply say that I believe these issues were very carefully weighed by the Assembly Executive Review Committee, that it reached the right conclusions, and that this model will give stability and fairness for this interim period until arrangements for a permanent Department are put in place. It might also be of assistance if I remind the hon. Gentleman that these proposals include a review of the arrangements by the Assembly before May 2012. That should provide some comfort to him, and to other hon. Members who, very understandably, have highlighted issues, but which I believe can, on closer scrutiny, be satisfied.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Laurence Robertson: I wish briefly to place on record our opinion that this part of the Bill is actually the most agreeable, largely for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and especially given the difficult negotiations that have taken place up to this point. It is my understanding that the question of who appoints the judiciary has been one of the sticking points, and it is therefore important that politicians are taken out of the process of selection or dismissal of the judiciary. The principle of separation of powers comes to mind, but also—given the sensitive situation in Northern Ireland—this is the best way forward. I am therefore afraid that we cannot support the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) if he presses this issue.

Laurence Robertson: As previously indicated, and for the reasons that I gave, we will not press the amendment to a vote. We reserve the right to consider it further over the next few days, but we will not press it to a vote tonight.
	 Debate interrupted (Order, this day).
	 The Chairman put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Order, this day), That the amendment be made.
	 Question accordingly negatived.
	 The Chairman then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, this day)
	 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 The Chairman then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, this day).
	 Schedules 1 to 6 agreed to..
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Bill reported, without amendment.
	 Bill read the Third time, and passed.